§ 20. Mr. Ennalsasked the Secretary of State what representations he has received concerning his decision to refuse financial support to organisations wishing to present 16 to the public inquiry evidence against the establishment of a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, Suffolk; and if he will now reconsider his decision.
§ Mr. LawsonI have received 12 letters on this matter since I wrote to the inquiry inspector on 21 September. My decision stands.
§ Mr. EnnalsIs the Secretary of State aware that this inquiry is of great national as well as local importance because it may determine the pattern for energy and capital expenditure over the next 20 years? Does he agree that it is vital that the public should know that both sides of the argument have been effectively and properly put forward? Bearing in mind the funds available to the Central Electricity Generating Board, does he agree that some assistance should be given to organisations taking a contrary view so that the case may be fairly presented?
§ Mr. LawsonI agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the inquiry, but I do not agree on the other points. As time is short, I merely refer him to the arguments that I set out at considerable length in my letter to Sir Frank Layfield explaining why I did not think it right to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. As I know that the right hon. Gentleman has great concern for the views of the trade unions, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that I have received a letter from the Employees' National Committee for the Electricity Supply Industry, the chairman and secretary of which are Mr. Frank Chapple and Mr. John Lyons, expressing strong opposition to any public funding for the objectors at the Sizewell inquiry.